As an on-again, off-again reader of Biblical scholarship, mostly in trade titles, I have grown in my on-again phase now conflicted about the depiction of the historical Jesus in the works of J.D. Crossan.
On the one hand, I am sort of convinced by arguments of Dr. Ehrman and others of the “Bultmann school” that there is probably no getting around the fact that Jesus of Nazareth was an apocalypticist of some sort. Especially compelling, besides the complicated and difficult search for “original sayings” of Jesus is the argument that Jesus’ associations began with the apocalypticist John the Baptist and ended with the formation of an early church community that had apocalyptic expectations (Paul’s letters, other early apocalyptic literature). I am also fairly convinced by the critiques of Crossan that he implausibly postulates editing of the Q-source that makes apocalyptic sayings later additions to the original, and his treatment of Gospel of the Hebrews as an early source. There is also the critique that, if the “kingdom of God” program of Jesus as Crossan would have it was just about sharing goods and non-violence, it would not likely have produced too much ire in the Roman political establishment.
At the same time, a lot of Crossan’s work showing the ways in which the early 1st-century Jewish-Roman relations were fraught in the ways they were seems detailed enough. He also argues in a very intriguing way about how the differences between the communities John and Jesus created, with John’s one of mere apocalyptic expectation and outspoken criticism of Herod Antipas, and with Jesus making his followers active agents in the establishment of groups of people performing the same things that Jesus did, reflected importantly different convictions between the two. And the difference between the kinds of communities should reflect something about very different convictions about what the “kingdom of God” was supposed to be like.
Maybe these various insights are not entirely mutually exclusive either.
I’ve just been thinking about these issues lately and would be interested to hear what others think about them.
I think all non-apocalyptic interpretations of the historical Jesus are attempts to make Jesus and his message relevant to the modern world. We have categories for Jesus the counter cultural wisdom sage, Jesus the proto-Marxist or Jesus the proto-feminist. But Jesus the apocalyptic prophet is a strange and alien figure. Most moderns consider that kind of thinking to be crazy. Paradoxically the more we know Jesus and place him in his own time the further away we move from him.
I do agree that Jesus seems to have been an proclaimer of an immanent apocalypse and establishment of God’s Kingdom on earth. I also agree, and Crossan more or less admits it, that he is seeking, as he puts it, a “transcendental ground” for strong commitments to social justice in modern times. This commitment does seem to compel him to embrace an historical construction of the development of early Christian literature that places later works earlier than other scholars do, and so forth. He also seems to strongly argue that Mark’s portrayal of Jesus entry into Jerusalem was more or less plausible, which is rather highly unlikely. I do however find some elements of his portrayal quite intriguing, including the part of it that postulates that Jesus constructed a very different kind of following than John did, a following that was going out and doing things with communities in Galilee rather than just coming to him for baptism or blessing. That does, at least intuitively, strike me as an important detail from which other significant points can be seen.
While I think Crossan’s non-apocalyptic view of Jesus is a serious liability that doesn’t preclude him from having interesting perceptions about the NT. The relationship between John the B and Jesus is a fascinating subject. I happen to be reading Joel Marcus’ new book about ** you do not have permission to see this link **. It’s useful to have a survey of current critical scholarly opinion about John between the covers of a single book. Interestingly Marcus detects a relationship between John and the Essenes. This is an old idea that I thought had fallen out of favor but Marcus makes this case.
Robert said
Stephen said
While I think Crossan’s non-apocalyptic view of Jesus is a serious liability that doesn’t preclude him from having interesting perceptions about the NT. The relationship between John the B and Jesus is a fascinating subject. I happen to be reading Joel Marcus’ new book about ** you do not have permission to see this link **. It’s useful to have a survey of current critical scholarly opinion about John between the covers of a single book. Interestingly Marcus detects a relationship between John and the Essenes. This is an old idea that I thought had fallen out of favor but Marcus makes this case.I wish I had the time to read this. (I very much like his commentary on the gospel of Mark.) I noticed this on the book jacket (emphasis mine):
“Through his ministry of baptism, he ushered all who came to him—Jews and non-Jews alike—into this dawning new age. …”
I imagine this is based on Luke’s account of John’s preaching to presumably Roman soldiers in Lk 3,14. How much does Marcus focus on John’s acceptance of Gentile followers? Do you find this credible?
Because he thinks John was associated with the Qumran community Marcus covers this aspect from multiple angles. He discusses the possibility of gentiles in both the Qumran community and as disciples of John. I will have to think about all this for a while. Marcus is forced by his thesis to speculate about the nature of John’s relationship with Qumran and to posit reasons why John would head out on his own ministry. All interesting but wouldn’t a simpler explanation be that all the apocalyptic groups active in first century, pre-revolt Palestine had at least some qualities in common?
Like his commentary on Mark which I also admire this is a dense fascinating work. And like any good monograph fully a third of the book consists of notes, appendices and bibliography. A long time digesting.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)